Don't Shun Controversial Ideas and People. Debate Them.
They should be heard, not shouted down.

The New York Times put Charles Murray on the cover of its Sunday magazine, calling him "The Most Dangerous Conservative."
That was after he co-wrote the book The Bell Curve, which argued that different ethnic groups have, on average, different IQs. As Murray puts it in my new video this week, "Blacks on average have a lower IQ than whites. However, whites are not at the top. East Asians, on average, have a higher IQ than whites. Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQs."
Other researchers agree.
An article in ScienceDirect journal puts it this way: "East Asians and their descendants average an IQ of about 106, Europeans and their descendants about 100, and Africans and their descendants about 85."
But many people don't believe it. Many don't even want such topics discussed.
Last time Murray tried speaking to college students, a mob shouted him down.
"They're angry at you because you're perpetuating racism," I tell Murray.
"These kids," he replies, "never read a word of anything I'd ever written."
That's probably true. It's more likely that they just read slander against him from smear sites like the Southern Poverty Law Center.
They call Murray a "white nationalist" and claim he says, "White men…are intellectually, psychologically, and morally superior."
"I've never said anything remotely like that!" says Murray.
"Do you believe that blacks are intellectually inferior?" I ask.
"If you give mental tests to a representative sample of whites and a representative sample of blacks," he says, "there will be about a one standard deviation difference. To then translate that into people being inferior and superior is idiotic."
He goes on to say that there are other differences between racial groups.
"I don't think there's been a white winner of the 100-yard dash in the Olympics for a zillion years."
Actually, 20 years. A white woman won 20 years ago; a white man hasn't won for 40 years.
It's probably because some black people have more fast-twitch muscles fibers, says Murray.
I don't see why saying that is controversial. It's just obvious that there are differences between groups.
But Murray has been canceled.
It's too bad.
Everything should be talked about. People who don't agree with Charles Murray should debate him, not shun him.
He is good at revealing unpopular truths.
He once had a job working for the government, evaluating social programs. He discovered that the "war on poverty" was not lifting people out of poverty. In fact, programs like welfare perpetuated poverty.
He wrote a book about that titled Losing Ground.
It soon became a bestseller, and influenced presidents from both parties. Welfare "reformers" Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton cited Murray's work. Clinton said, "Murray has done the country a service."
Then Murray wrote In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government—a book that changed my thinking.
He describes his time as a Peace Corps volunteer in Thailand. He watched Thai government "experts" create what they said would be a "model community." They gave the village a fishpond, a rice cooperative, a health clinic. But this aid diminished community activities.
"They weren't as happy as they used to be," says Murray. "I saw what government looks like from Bangkok and how it looks to the villager. It's the same in the United States."
The United States has spent $25 trillion (so far) on our war on poverty. But the poverty rate has stayed about the same. Instead of eliminating poverty, the war created a new "underclass"—fatherless kids who give birth to other fatherless kids—generations of families who become dependent on government handouts.
Yet the programs keep growing.
"Aren't you upset?" I ask Murray.
"I'm deeply depressed," he says. "We have watched, in our own lifetime, our hopes and dreams turned to smoldering ruins."
Then he smiles and says, "The good news is that old people are habitually too pessimistic."
Charles Murray, an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has interesting ideas. They deserve to be heard, not shouted down.
I will do a second video, covering more of his work, in a few weeks.
COPYRIGHT 2024 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"East Asians and their descendants average an IQ of about 106, Europeans and their descendants about 100, and Africans and their descendants about 85."
India is fascinating on this because there's thousands of groups that have been as endogamous as the Ashkenazi, but for 3500 years, so in the same village you can have several groups who haven't intermarried for millennia. This level of endogamy lends itself to huge variation in IQ, with some groups averaging as low as 68 and others 110.
Also, there are always exceptions to the rule in places like Africa, such as the Yoruba who are the same as Europeans, and the Igbo who average around 105. On the other hand you're not going to find many Nobel Prize winners among the poor Mbuti.
The fuckwits being talked about here, whether or not they even recognize themselves as intending to cancel are too stupid to address the fact that they can’t prove their claims or refute what they deny.
In rational debate the objective is to discern and agree on truth, reality. Thats not their objective, so they will never engage in rational debate or accept rational conclusions.
Know your enemy.
Fuck off, you piece of garbage.
I was talking about you too.
I'm making over $7k a month working component time. I saved hearing other people inform me how lots cash they could make online so Qd I decided to look at it. Well, it turned into all proper and has definitely modified my life. Get this today by follow...
Instructions Here —>>> https://Www.Smartcareer1.com
there are always exceptions to the rule in places like Africa
[rubs eyebrows/shields eyes]
You know they aren't violating the law of averages, right? That they aren't exceptions to any rule unless "the rule" is along the lines of "All Africans are dumber than all Asians and Europeans.", right?
And I won't get into the projection and omission of detail (which you know to be critical) about the metaphorical "IQ testing performed in 2015 demonstrates that E. German 'Soviet IQs' are 105 while W. German 'Capitalist IQs' are 103."
Everything should be talked about. People who don't agree with Charles Murray should debate him, not shun him.
This is pretty disingenuous and Stossel is smart enough to know better. Not only has Murray been debated countless times, but an entire book of criticisms of his ideas, The Bell Curve Debate, was put together by 81 different scientists, authors, and philosophers and was a best seller. Not to mention countless other articles and books that lay waste to his ideas, conclusions, and research methods. And I haven't even mentioned where his funding comes from (take a wild guess).
Murray never submits his work for peer review, his statistical analysis has been torn to shreds by actual statisticians, and his ideas about human biology are so far removed from reality that you would be hard pressed to find an actual biologist that agrees with his "research".
They haven't won the debate. Just thrown different framings of this at it. While I may not like the data, their is a bit of truth to this. I did not like that my Asian friends in high school were smarter than me, I did still like them.
The idea that there are no discernable differences between people whose ancestors have lived in vastly different environments is in direct opposition to the idea of natural selection.
My ancestors are Scandinavian. Thus I have a long narrow nose providing maximum internal surface area to better warm the air before it hits my lungs. People who evolved in hot climates have a drastically different nose than I do.
I don't think it's all nurture that leads to a majority of professional basketball players being blacks. Nature clearly plays a part.
These things can be cautiously spoken about in the right circles. As soon as you mention intelligence the discussion becomes accusations of racism and bigotry.
I've read some of the stuff that is written against his theories. Most of it is garbage studies and name calling. As for Peer Review the process is completely broken. I follow a group that tracks bad studies that need to be retracted. They have a very long list of studies, some as old as twenty years, that have yet to be retracted. Peer Reviewed is not a good standard, more like a lead standard.
My "debate them" ... Your whole premise is collectivist defining and It's Anti-Individual. I assume most of those students are just the *special* collectivists who think Blacks are smarter than White and couldn't care less that Murrays statistics say Asian are smarter than White making them no better than Murray at all. As a nation built on Individualism I think your work and speeches should be ignored by the greater part of this nation.
This fails to recognize that cancelation of this sort is done by people who think they'd lose a debate. It's not a stupid choice on their part, it's a smart tactic if you can pull it off.
On a neutral field, Stossel is completely correct. More discussion and debate is necessary to decipher the truth and to make the best decisions. This occurs if there is an honest attempt to collect, analyze, and apply information. What we see is a certain faction brazenly corrupting all steps of this process with bad data and no willingness to debate. We can both sides the issue, but I do see the right as far more willing to openly debate. Since the power structures adhere to leftist ideology it is against their interests to engage in open and honest debate. Shouting "debate me!" at this wall is typically fruitless and will usually be rejected
The idea there are only two sides to an issue is the real problem with debating these issues.
Commenting now before the article is taken down.
Crime, police brutality, redistributing wealth, oppressors, reparations, privilege, hiring, DEI: skin color is the most important thing.
IQ: There's no such thing as race.
Reminder: leftists aren't people
Words and ideas are dangerous.
It's a waste of time to debate or engage with bad faith actors or even those that are merely intellectually dishonest. Where you do find good faith, intellectually honest discourse, a mutual pursuit of truth is possible.
You’re missing the point.
It’s especially necessary to engage “bad faith actors” in rational debate to expose them every time and everywhere they ply their trade.
They’ll soon have zero credibility for never proving their claims or refuting what they deny but this alone won’t change their objective to truth. They have no honour or self respect. Those concepts mean nothing to lying satanists.
The debate is for those with honour, who respect truth, reality and the difference between right and wrong. They will make truth their objective and accept it even when it demonstrates that they’re wrong.
Look for people like that. Encourage them with debate, even, no especially when it contradicts them.
Fuck cancellers.
“They’ll soon have zero credibility”
No, it’s you who seem to have missed the point. Credibility with whom? Do you think credibility counts for the social justice narrative propaganda crowd at the Washington Post and the New York Times? Do you think their credibility will fall with the people who read them? Do you think the politicians and government officials care about their credibility as long as they keep their powerful seats? Did Trump’s credibility fall when he failed to keep a single promise during his single term in the White House? The moment you destroy the credibility of an academic narrative the proponents simply fade back into the jungle, only to reappear with a new narrative! The moment a court strikes down a government intrusion, they retreat to their caves and impose the same slightly reworded intrusion a month later.
You post anonymously. I’m sure that helps you fade away or crawl back under your rock when you’re refuted.
You have zero accountability for what you say and have zero credibility.
Other people, like those who have a real identity and credibility for never having been refuted for example, are more likely to be careful not to be refuted in future dialogue and are more likely to be truthful.
Politicians only seldom enter carefully scripted debates in safe environments where nobody asks tough unambiguous questions because truth isn’t their objective.
People who really value truth are soundly in the minority but our words are more powerful than any lie ever can be.
When all candidates lie, there is no other option than to elect liars. When the electorate sees the wealthy and powerful are liars, they are more likely to lie, accept lies and not value truth.
In civilization we make sure crime doesn’t pay by making laws and punishing criminals.
Criminalizing lying might help make you an honest person who values truth.
You post anonymously. I’m sure that helps you fade away or crawl back under your rock when you’re refuted.
You have zero accountability for what you say and have zero credibility.
Without anonymity people have to be more careful about what they say, and are less likely to explore controversial ideas, because there is a real likelihood of retaliation at work or at home.
By the way, did the authors of the Federalist Papers have zero credibility?
The anonymous authors had no credibility. There was nobody to trust.
Their words stood on their own virtue by not being refuted.
I am proof that anonymity isn’t required to speak the truth and support justice.
An anonymous coward will always be a coward.
^Definitively
Paraphrasing an idiom: A lone sheep cannot debate it's way out of dinner with two wolves.
Sorry, John but debating is the least effective tool to combat creeping (and creepy) socialism there is. Although we must continue to explain our reasons, how can you possibly change someone’s mind who refuses to USE his mind? If she announces loudly and clearly that facts, logic, maths, statistics and epidemiology are tools of the white racist patriarchy, how will debate reverse that? Many of us are done talking and we’re starting to fight back. Physical resistance to government power and the propaganda and academic narratives behind it is the only tool of self defense we have left.
Except that IQ tests have been (and still are) economically, educationally, socially and culturally biased (as teens and adults who were never taught algebra, trigonometry, calculus, world history, US history, geography, biology, chemistry, physics, economics, literature, music or foreign languages and who instead are taught that blacks, latinos, Native Americans, illegal immigrants and convicted felons have always been victims of White Supremacists).
To be fair, IQ tests were NEVER intended to be used to compare people of different cultures in different countries. The IQ tests were designed to predict the success of students in American higher education institutions, and that is the ONLY thing they were ever validated for scientifically. Some researchers have doubled back after the fact to test out the cultural differences and see how that might impact the success of culturally different students but it does not “validate” the system in any way.
Heard and debated before they're implemented.
For example - the LGBT Groomer Porn in schools. Every single parent should have had a say in that, and it probably would have avoided a whole lot of headache and controversy. And if things didn't go someone's way, they could pull their kid out.
Same goes with DIE. Have a shareholders meeting, or do some market polling. Explain that you're going to hire less/unqualified pilots on the primary basis of race, sex, orientation, and disability. See if that's what they want for their airline industry.
The problem is that people just keep doing these things with zero input from the people it affects the most. Likely because we live in a nation of perpetual children who have constant tantrums and cannot - even slightly - handle hearing the word "no."
The real problem I see with Charles Murray is that his work can be twisted to create inequities in society. The Bell Curve looks at populations not individuals. The problems start when the data for population drives policies that hurt the individual. I grew up where professional football was integrated but where there were no quarterbacks of color. The position was thought to require a level of intelligence that the black players did not have. Today's professional football has quarterbacks from a wide range of racial backgrounds. Charles Murray work is interesting academically but has no practical application in the world. We have to see people as individuals not as part of a population. So, why then do we push for diversity because we are trying to make up for inequities set in the past. For a time when no black player needed to try out for quarterback, because no matter how good he was not going to get the position.
"The problems start when the data for population drives policies"
+10000000000 well said for once in a lifetime.
There should be no debates.
Eliminating debates would keep the counter-revolutionary reactionaries at bay from polluting the minds of the masses.
You don't have debate in such proletariat paradises as Cuba, North Korea or the PRC, and just look how much simpler life is there.